Jump to content


Photo

Are current matches just not as memorable or up to par as previous decades?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#21 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 09:20 AM

 

Some things don't change.  Triple H was still clearly not very good in-ring and had little to no heat despite being booked as strong as you will ever see someone booked form mid-1999 on.  But that's the other good thing about watching older wrestling removed from the moment - it can reaffirm opinions.

 

 

I think Triple H had his single best big match ever in 2014. Maybe even his top two.



#22 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8865 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 10:13 AM

I've argued with one of my music buddies about this so often.

I think that there are really two modes of being into something:

1. "On the steam train" -- this is someone who is into the thing right now, part of the zeitgeist, a member of the "happening" scene.

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

But there's something else about being on the steam train. It's going to gigs, it's being part of something in the here and now, it's EXPERIENTIAL. I know a lot of women like this. The way they engage with interests -- they don't care about the dates, names of the directors of films, or even the names of songs or what songs are on which album -- they just don't care about that stuff. What's important is the experience and being "part of it". This holds no interest for me whatsoever. Never has, never will.

2. The historical approach or "the connoisseur" -- this is someone who doesn't really care about what is going on now, but who searches the back catalogues of the past, sampling eras, exploring areas in depth, finding out about particular things that happened mostly after critical consensus has been formed -- maybe 10 years or more after the fact. That's me. It's me in all things: music, film, wrestling, whatever. The only exception is sport, and even then I'm much much more into analysis and stats than being part of a crowd and cheering or whatever.

I'm not saying that people have to be wholly one or wholly the other of these two modes, but I think most will have a tendency towards one.

 

That's the whole difference between "living it" and "thinking about it". And while I've enjoyed going back a whole lot, if I'm truly honest, I never had so much fun watching wrestling than during the times I was living it, especially during the Monday Night Wars and when I was following (as much as I could) the joshi scene, especially ARSION, in 99/01. If current pro-wrestling was able to grab me, I wouldn't probably care that much about revisiting stuff from the past. And I actually am kinda bored with it at this point (I dropped old USWA watch after a few weeks, no matter how fun Lawler was). Probably burned out, probably have been underwhelmed by some of the so-called "great finds" also. So yeah. I'm waiting for Lucha Underground to kick off again.



#23 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8865 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 10:15 AM

Lastly, I think heat has a lot to do with the point of view that current matches are less memorable.  I think it is fair to say that in general - at least in the US - fans are less invested in the matches and results than any other time in history.  That leads to less heated matches and therefore less matches that standout as truly epic and memorable.  Wrestlers may or may not be more athletic, soundly trained, or whatever but I am not sure how much that really means when not even the biggest matches are getting the kind of invested fan reaction that matches got 15, 20, or 30 years ago.

 

Yeah, this too.



#24 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 10:38 AM

I could be off on this, but I do think a huge issue with CMLL is that a lot of the traditional tecnico fans who'd come in with the huge signs and the drums and what not have been alienated and just don't show up anymore. It really affects the feel of the crowds.



#25 BigBadMick

BigBadMick
  • Members
  • 1399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newry, Northern Ireland

Posted 02 January 2015 - 11:24 AM

I've argued with one of my music buddies about this so often.

I think that there are really two modes of being into something:

1. "On the steam train" -- this is someone who is into the thing right now, part of the zeitgeist, a member of the "happening" scene.

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

But there's something else about being on the steam train. It's going to gigs, it's being part of something in the here and now, it's EXPERIENTIAL. I know a lot of women like this. The way they engage with interests -- they don't care about the dates, names of the directors of films, or even the names of songs or what songs are on which album -- they just don't care about that stuff. What's important is the experience and being "part of it". This holds no interest for me whatsoever. Never has, never will.

2. The historical approach or "the connoisseur" -- this is someone who doesn't really care about what is going on now, but who searches the back catalogues of the past, sampling eras, exploring areas in depth, finding out about particular things that happened mostly after critical consensus has been formed -- maybe 10 years or more after the fact. That's me. It's me in all things: music, film, wrestling, whatever. The only exception is sport, and even then I'm much much more into analysis and stats than being part of a crowd and cheering or whatever.

I'm not saying that people have to be wholly one or wholly the other of these two modes, but I think most will have a tendency towards one.

Reminds me of this thread....

 

http://prowrestlingo...-or-after-1996/

 

I know we don't like to categorise a PWO 'type', but would it be fair to say most posters are connoisseurs?



#26 stomperspc

stomperspc
  • Members
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:19 PM

 

 

Some things don't change.  Triple H was still clearly not very good in-ring and had little to no heat despite being booked as strong as you will ever see someone booked form mid-1999 on.  But that's the other good thing about watching older wrestling removed from the moment - it can reaffirm opinions.

 

 

I think Triple H had his single best big match ever in 2014. Maybe even his top two.

 

 

I meant that 1999 Triple is still clearly not very good re-watching 1999 WWF 15 years after the fact.  He was considered poor in the ring and heat-less (despite getting a MONSTER push and constantly being put over Rock & Austin) at the time and that holds up looking back.  The point was that that some memorable or unmemorable stuff looks better with distance and perspective, but some opinions held at the time don't necessarily change even with the benefit of hindsight. That's all.  I was saying 1999 Triple H is "still bad" not that Triple H in 2014 is "still bad".

 

For the record, I fully agree that Triple H's match with Bryan was likely his best match ever and the first Shield trios is way up there for me, too.  



#27 W2BTD

W2BTD
  • Members
  • 852 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:36 PM

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.

 

Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.



#28 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:36 PM

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

 

Why? Pitchfork was very late to the party on them, publications like Fact and GvsB were supporting their music months before.We live in a fantastic era for new music, and thinking that doesn't just make you some transient fan riding the hipster train. With something like PC Music it will almost inevitably age badly as well, so you are missing out by not listening to it when it is part of the cultural zeitgeist.

 

PC Music is like the Attitude Era. Terrible a decade later but a lot of fun if you were involved in it.



#29 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:54 PM

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.
 
Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.


On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

#30 W2BTD

W2BTD
  • Members
  • 852 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 01:20 PM

 

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.
 
Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.


On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

 

 

This is a good point. Trips was clearly driving the cart there for many reasons

 

I think the time crunch of a WrestleMania undercard may have inadvertently helped from that perspective, too.  



#31 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 01:32 PM

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.



#32 Bierschwale

Bierschwale
  • Members
  • 1059 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 02:58 PM

I think of the Bryan match as Trips deciding to live out his Finlay and Regal fantasies and not his Flair and Race fantasies. Bryan was THE opponent for it.



#33 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 07:24 PM

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

 
Why? Pitchfork was very late to the party on them, publications like Fact and GvsB were supporting their music months before.We live in a fantastic era for new music, and thinking that doesn't just make you some transient fan riding the hipster train. With something like PC Music it will almost inevitably age badly as well, so you are missing out by not listening to it when it is part of the cultural zeitgeist.
 
PC Music is like the Attitude Era. Terrible a decade later but a lot of fun if you were involved in it.
Track record with him. I always call him out on jumping on the latest bandwagon, his defence is always that he was ahead of the curve. I say he's on the steam train, he denies it. I define cool as digging out an obscure and little appreciated album from 1972, he defines it by being one step ahead of pitchfork.

Swings and roundabouts but the point is that it's two distinctly different approaches. Although weirdly, that same friend has followed my lead on film and has now seen about a third of the sight and sound top 100 ... So maybe for him in music it's one way and with film another.

But you can see my point ...

In wrestling terms, being on the steam train is moaning about WWE booking decisions, getting into the New Japan hype and attending live shows. I'm not condemning that or anyone who wants to do that, but it's a long way from what I do and am about.

Lots of people here do both.

#34 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 11:26 PM

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied. 

 

Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.



#35 shoe

shoe
  • Moderators
  • 9099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2015 - 11:56 PM

 

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.
 
Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.


On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

 

Plus he wasn't going to bust out all his toys in an opening match. I mean how many HHH matches have opened a ppv? I think positioning helped a ton with his restraint.



#36 funkdoc

funkdoc

    free si oem

  • Members
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 03:19 AM

i'm with OJ et al. on this

 

i really think it's harder to appreciate stuff when you don't have a clear overall narrative of the business, and you often don't for something as it's happening.  the framework typically develops over the next decade or two, and that lets everyone place the matches in a greater context and appreciate them more.



#37 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:17 AM

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied. 
 
Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.

I didn't say S&S was hip. But the point is he's doing his homework.

The thing is, (back to wrestling) even if you are missing out on stuff now to an extent "cream will rise", so you'll always be able to seek out what is pimped after the fact.

I've said it before ... I think the real reason people watch WWE now is to be part of the instant reaction on social media. It's less about the product and more about being part of an ongoing discussion in the moment.

#38 BigBadMick

BigBadMick
  • Members
  • 1399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newry, Northern Ireland

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:20 AM

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?



#39 BigBadMick

BigBadMick
  • Members
  • 1399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newry, Northern Ireland

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:27 AM

 

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied. 
 
Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.

I didn't say S&S was hip. But the point is he's doing his homework.

The thing is, (back to wrestling) even if you are missing out on stuff now to an extent "cream will rise", so you'll always be able to seek out what is pimped after the fact.

I've said it before ... I think the real reason people watch WWE now is to be part of the instant reaction on social media. It's less about the product and more about being part of an ongoing discussion in the moment.

 

There's loads of things that I get swept up in the moment by and, although not necessarily regretting the time invested, wouldn't do the same again in hindsight.

 

I think I need to strike a balance for me personally - I can't just watch 1980s wrestling, on my own, without on-going discussion in the moment, all the time.



#40 iamthedoctor

iamthedoctor
  • Members
  • 797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:41 AM

 

 

 

Some things don't change.  Triple H was still clearly not very good in-ring and had little to no heat despite being booked as strong as you will ever see someone booked form mid-1999 on.  But that's the other good thing about watching older wrestling removed from the moment - it can reaffirm opinions.

 

 

I think Triple H had his single best big match ever in 2014. Maybe even his top two.

 

 

I meant that 1999 Triple is still clearly not very good re-watching 1999 WWF 15 years after the fact.  He was considered poor in the ring and heat-less (despite getting a MONSTER push and constantly being put over Rock & Austin) at the time and that holds up looking back.  The point was that that some memorable or unmemorable stuff looks better with distance and perspective, but some opinions held at the time don't necessarily change even with the benefit of hindsight. That's all.  I was saying 1999 Triple H is "still bad" not that Triple H in 2014 is "still bad".

 

For the record, I fully agree that Triple H's match with Bryan was likely his best match ever and the first Shield trios is way up there for me, too.  

 

 

Triple H wasent any good when I watched him from this era never mind when I rewatched his 99 run last year. Sure he was decent on the mic but I always felt he had a horrible run that was seemingly forced onto the fans. There were other guys who knew how to draw heat from the fans as a heel but for me his heat was more that fans did not want him in the main event slot period. I didnt mind him in DX as a mid carder alough it was clear he didnt want to put Owen over in their feud over the title and had Hunter and Shawn not been pals around early 96 if he would have gotten the success he did.

 

I didnt enjoy his run in 2000 either as he was too much hogging the limelight and had Vince change Wrestlemania because always a face went over in the main event but he wanted to be the one I believe who told Vince that he shouldnt always give the fans what they want all the time and a heel should go over in the last match. I would have liked to seen Cactus win the big belt but that obviously wasent happening. The insane long promos either didnt help and everyone knows about the careers he wouldnt put over in the big matches ie Booker, RVD for example.

 

Compiling a top 30 greatest matches of all time for WWE I think I would struggle to find a Hunter match worth putting in. I know alot of fans like to put the blame on his relationship with Steph being the reason he got a push but Hunter just plain sucked in the ring and never found anything interesting about his character except in 2006 when him and Shawn did those skits on the McMahons.

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users